Title: A component based modular treatment of the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum: the GEOSPACE framework (v.1.2.9)

Summary:

The manuscript introduces a novel modeling framework that focuses on modeling the interactions within the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum (SPAC). Rather than using a single, rigid model, the authors propose a modular approach called GEOSPACE-1D, built on object-oriented programming principles. GEOSPACE-1D is a flexible, open-source framework with self-contained components. This modular design allows for easy customization, reuse, and extension of the model without disrupting existing parts to integrate new processes seamlessly. Instead of offering a single definitive model. The manuscript thoroughly describes the framework's components, providing information about modularity, process representation and interaction between components. The authors further discuss the implementation of the system with a case study, describe the setup, and present the results.

General Comments:

While supplementary materials provide detail on the GEOFRAME system, the main body could include a brief description of the system. Clearly establish GEOFRAME as the overarching framework and explicitly define GEOSPACE as the specific ecohydrological model within it. This clarification will significantly improve the reader's understanding of the present work and contextualize it. Consider adding a brief introductory paragraph or section in the main body that explains the purpose and architecture of the GEOFRAME system, and how GEOSPACE fits within it.

The captions of the figures need to be more descriptive to meet the author's intention. Some figures have very descriptive captions and some others lack detail. Despite providing a description in the main body, it is important that the figures are self-explanatory or at least that the author helps the reader in their interpretation. Take, for example, Figure 3, where the width of the arrows is explained in the text but should also be included in the caption. Instead of simply stating "[arrow] thickness reflecting the volume of exchanged variables" rewrite Figure 3's caption to include: "Arrow widths represent [specific meaning, e.g., water flow volume]."

While the number of figures in Section 7 is appropriate, the analysis and interpretation of the simulation results are insufficient. Provide a more thorough evaluation of the model's performance, including quantitative metrics (if possible) and qualitative assessments relative to the experiment setup. Also, the authors could describe the processes represented in the simulations and explain the logic behind the observed model behavior. What can be considered limitations?

Consider improving the structure of the manuscript regarding sections and subsections. The paragraph preceding each subsection should provide a clear introduction and establish the connection to the subsequent content. For example, in Section 4, the unnumbered subsections (Priestley-Taylor ET estimator, Penman-Monteith FAO estimator, Prospero Model) should be introduced with a unifying paragraph that explains their relevance. The transition into sections 4.1 and 4.1.1 should be handled with more clarity.

Specific Comments:

Abstract

• Include a couple of sentences describing the GEOFRAME system and the gap that GEOSPACE is filling.
• Add a mention of the processes that can be represented in the GEOSPACE framework.

Introduction

• Add details about the GEOFRAME system, and the relevance of including SPAC process representation.
• Include details on the performance of the framework when tested as presented in section 7
• Clarify that GEOSPACE is a framework within the GEOframe system.

GEOSPACE-1D System Overview and its perceptual model

• There is a mention to “multiple stress functions mentioned in the introduction” but such reference is missing in the introduction
• General notes about the software organization of GEOSPACE-1D
• Figure 3 could be improved by including a description/functionality of each component within the SPAC. The thickness of the arrows represents the number of variables, but it is not described in the caption or the number. Is there a sequence in the computing of each component, if so, is there a starting point?

GEOET

• Considering improving the structure of this section.
  • The Priestley-taylor ET estimator
  • The Penman-Montheith FAO estimator
  • The Prospero Model
• The GEOET informatics organization
  • How to add a new model?: Is this section only referring to new models for GEOET?

Unveiling GEOSPACE-1D capabilities on practical applications

• Figure 12 is not very clear. Consider using a different scale or color scheme to better show the temporal variability. Additionally, incorporating the rainfall timeseries could help interpret the variation shown in this figure while tracking the the occurrence of rainfall events. 
• Consider providing a side by side comparison between the most relevant aspects of the two experiments. 

• User information: Input and output

• This information should be included in code and data availability. Section 8

Summary

This paper presents a modeling framework with three sub-components aiming to improve the simulation capabilities of soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. The paper primarily focuses on presenting the software rather than the science or the specific results. I've checked the overall paper for clarity and some of the formulations, but I haven’t checked the math in depth since that would be a little out of my domain. I'd recommend that it gets checked in other parts of the review. However, it seems sub-models have been already published and this paper is more focused on the integration.

One overall major comment that didn't fit in the section is that it would help to produce a table of similar class of models, their short descriptions, and key features evaluated against key advances in GEOSPACE-1D. Other major comments include no assets being available for review/links not working, big wiring diagram is missing, case implementation and validation could be improved, performance metrics to be included etc. My detailed comments, including minor and major, are organized below in the order of appearance in the manuscript. Most of these comments are going to be applicable throughout the manuscript but I’ve highlighted them at only a few places.

Specific comments

Abstract

Line 3 - specify matter? do you mean organic matter?

Line 4 and throughout the text: deemphasis interdisciplinary aspects. This paper is still a very specific product of ecohydrologists, without any input from, let’s say, economists. It is fine to mention the need for interdisciplinary science and products but probably don’t frame this as an interdisciplinary product.

Line 24 – It is important to make sure it produces some kind of results. Or a prototype model or case implementation is critical for this paper to be strong. I see Section 7 speaks to it but there are some concerns there as described later. Also, better to mention the case implementation and discuss some results/over model behavior here in the abstract as well.

Intro

It is unclear from the introduction what this paper is contributing. I see many motivations being described such as better SPAC modeling, going beyond traditional "models", MBC etc, but the description of the unique contribution is lacking. I'd suggest not only specifying that comprehensively but also including an overarching "vision" statement for the model covering its scope, specifications and significance.

Section 2

Line 108 and throughout the text – “with flexibility and minimal effort”: Major: Since this is primarily a software paper, I'd like to see performance metrics included in the SI or the appendices. A comparison with other models/software or previous versions would also be nice. It is understandable if those are not available for other models but a comparison to the preceding version would help the reader see the value of this contribution more clearly.

Line 114 and throughout the text – I see a few critical citation are referencing to authors own previous work. No issues with that but it would make the paper stronger if some of the formulations/key statements could also be supported by other citations. Just a suggestion

Fig 1 - Are these components developed as a part of this effort/paper. it is not clear so far

Line 136 – Major comment: There are many modules/components within the GEOframe suite. I see Fig 1 and Fig 3 attempt to list a few but a bigger wire-diagram showing all components with their connection is critically needed to follow what's going on and how everything works together. I suggest including that as a separate Fig at the start. It is fine if that fig gets complex, sometimes looking everything in one place is much better than trying to connect across pages

Section 4

Major: In this section, I would suggest highlighting the strengths of the formulation in this paper compared to Penman-Monteith and Priestley-Taylor since you describe them as simplified approaches in the intro. "Traditional PBM-based land surface models, widely used in hydrology and agronomy, often employ simplified governing equations, such as the Penman-Monteith equation (Pereira et al., 2015) or the Priestley-Taylor approach". Alternatively, you can repurpose to better highlight Prospero.

Line 334: “GEOET, developed as part of this paper”: Too far into the paper to mention this. Suggest being upfront about the key unique contributions of the model/paper

Lines 560-575: non-critical writing style check: suggest making proper paras

Page 30 and Figs 12-19 – Major: no validation of any sorts is presented to confirm the behavior of the model’s outputs. I’d highly recommend a comparison with data and in the worst case an expert-based evaluation of the model diagnostics.

No assets were available for review. SPIKE II data is available on zenodo but no links in Section 8 or the code available are functions. I would recommend including them as texts too: https://github.com/geoframecomponents/GEOSPACE-1D